Assessment 2 (80%)
Case study – WearWorld plc
In Autumn 2022, Joe Smith, Chief Engineer of WearWorld, led a cameraman around the product development labs of WearWorld’s R&D facility just outside Oxford. Like all labs of the company, they were off limits to protect from intellectual property theft. WearWorld has been working on a new product, The Zonna. A device with headphones and a face visor.
Zonna – The Product
The Zonna is a hybrid headset, utilising Bluetooth technology, and an air-purifying visor. A post covid-19 development of a product category. WearWorld has been known to break down product boundaries through innovation with several success stories in the past. Part of their success was attributed to previous air purification efforts. Joe Smith has been at the forefront of innovation, having invented office equipment, GPS devices, etc. Zonna is a test for Joe. The market for such, wearable, devices is uncertain and appears to be directly affected by the vagaries of the market including the economy and the impact of the recent pandemic, which is lingering on still.
WearWorld has been burned in the past when they tried to enter the market for vehicle air purification. They had installed 250 engineers in their facility in Oxford and invested £300 million on the development of an air purifying system (pollen, brake and airborne dust etc.) for car manufacturers to offer as an optional accessory to car buyers. The product failed miserably largely due to the high manufacturing cost and the heavy burden on car battery power requirements.
Zonna – The design
The WearWorld engineers deployed ingenuity and all their experience in developing the smaller appliance needed for air purification. Internal canals running from each headphone transport a continuous stream of purified air to the nose and mouth within a mouthpiece that does not touch the face. Through many prototypes, engineers finally arrived at a contact-free visor design that covered the nose and mouth. The more air is required, the more power is drained from the gadget’s battery. To achieve a high level of air purification, the engineers developed tiny motors inside the headphone cavity that sucked in outside air, purify it and send it down to the visor. The air filters are capable of removing ultrafine dust particles and pollutants down to 0.1 microns. The visor, connected to headphones, was another breakthrough achieved after substantive testing and R&D investment. The battery was designed to provide effective power for up to 3 hours (music, external noise cancelling and air purification) under normal use (say when commuting). During sports pursuits, with the increased exertion, the battery could only last for about 1 hour. The rechargeable battery is replaceable and WearWorld is thinking to offer replacements on a subscription basis. Joe was working on an improved battery but this would probably take 18 months or so.
Having invested £25 million in product development, they need to launch urgently…
Finally, the product’s manufacturing cost would depend heavily on the production levels. The engineers have costed Zonna as follows:
Production (units)
Cost per unit made (£)
10,000
450
50,000
370
100,000
325
500,000
250
1,000,000
145
Zonna – Your Brief
WearWorld plc invited you – as a Business Strategy Consultant – to prepare a Business Plan specific to the Product.
The Board will meet and review your proposal after 25th September 2024.
The CEO of WearWorld plc wants to know the following, specifically (See Marking Scheme below):
· The specific customer segment(s) for the products (quantified in terms of numbers and profiles)
· The clear value proposition (how different is the product) for each segment
· The competitors (direct and indirect)
· Marketing Strategy – e.g. Porter’s generic strategy (Product, Pricing, Promotion & Distribution Channels)
· Promotional Strategy
· Product-specific financial forecast for 3 years (Sales Units, Revenue streaCosts production and marketing)
· Spin-off products or services (like battery subscriptions, extended warranties etc.)
Group size: Individual Work
Weighting: 80%
Word count: 2,500 +/-10
Submission Date: 13 November 2024 at 1159 hours
Assessment
Method
Description
of Item
% weighting
Due on
Outcomes
Coursework
Group Presentation (ppt slides maximum 10 to 15)
20%
6 September 2024
1,2,3
Coursework
Individual Student Report
(maximum 2,500 +/- 10% words)
80%
13 November 2024
1,2,3,4
Marking Scheme
Individual Essay
70+
60-69
50-59
40-49
below
40
Background
An
academic discussion of marketing and operational requirements in a chosen
context
Demonstrate
an understanding of key marketing and operational academic concepts applied
to practice
Demonstrate a critical awareness of own
self-reflection within
organisation
Extensive
critical awareness of learning style and additional areas demonstrated
Key
theory identified
Demonstrate
a high level understanding of key marketing
and operational academic concepts and provide a detailed, critical
review of relevant academic area chosen and use to justify/ enhance answers
As
70+ but level of understanding of key marketing
and operational academic concepts may not be so thoroughly applied or
discussion of findings may lack depth (does not go far beyond reiterating
what is in a general background introduction
As
60+ but understanding of key marketing and operational academic concepts
generally lack depth of information and the discussion is rather superficial.
There may be a sense that one or perhaps two theories/ models are not well
understood.
As
50+ but there is limited understanding of key marketing and operational
academic concepts, or models, poorly
applied. There may be very limited
discussion of findings
At
40+
Key
marketing and operational academic concepts are not really understood and
concepts, or models, poorly
applied. There may be very limited
discussion of findings.
There
may be a strong sense that the student has not read the brief carefully
enough or has missed some key aspect of it.
Scholarship: evidence of wide academic reading
A
record and critical discussion of theory applied to practice
Revisions
made as a result of formative feedforward
Practical application
Using the theory demonstrates evidence of
evaluating and improving organisational performance and development
Self-reflection
Good
evidence of wide academic reading (at least 8 different academic sources).
Citations are relevant and integrated well with the leadership issue i.e. not
just citing things without connecting it to their discussion
Excellent
evaluation of critical incident and self-reflection – Also considers how
theory can inform practice. Evidence of an integrative approach of theory to
practice
A
number of relevant , practical solutions to improve organisational
performance -informed by theory
Excellent
self reflection including detailed action plan
As
70+ but one of the sources might be an internet source or a different version
of the same book. Citations might not be as well integrated e.g. a quote but
with no real discussion of its relevance to the issue
As
70+ but slightly less evidence of how theory can inform practice. Evidence
and citations may not be as well integrated.
As
70+ but slightly less evidence of detailed self-evaluation
As
60+ but with less evidence of wide academic reading. There is at least one
good academic source e.g. the core text book
As
60+ but with less evidence of how theory can be used to inform practice.
Generally
lacking depth of information, discussion, and application – somewhat
superficial. Some solutions – limited practical application
As
60+ but with less evidence of how theory can be used to inform practice.
As
50+ but with limited evidence of academic reading. A small number of
references or an over-reliance on internet / non academic sources for theory
e.g. Wikipedia or businessballs.com.
As
50+ but with limited evidence of the application of theory to practice
Not
really informed by theory
As 50+
but with limited evidence of the application of theory to practice
As
40+ but may have only internet references or no references at all.
As
40+ but with very poor information on how theory can inform practice.
performance
–not informed by theory
Limited
self-reflection
Presentation
Report/ Presentation: follows recommended structure. Logical and persuasive writing style. Well
presented with good grammar and spelling. Harvard referencing style
throughout. Submitted on time.
Excellent
standard of presentation. Logical, articulate and scholarly writing style.
Clearly conforms to the recommended structure. Good use of Harvard
referencing throughout.
As
70+ but there may be one or two minor referencing errors or some minor spelling,
presentation or grammatical errors
As 60+ but the writing style or presentation is
weak in places. There may be a number of referencing errors
As
50+ but the writing style or presentation is weak. There may be a lot of
referencing errors.
As
40+ but the writing style and presentation is poor and does not follow the
recommended structure. Harvard referencing is poor.
Simplified Description
CRITERIA
DISTINCTION
90-100%
(exceptional)
·
As below, with highly sophisticated level of theorisation
and innovative conceptualisation or methodology
80-89%
(superior)
·
As below, with greater insight/originality and
wider/deeper engagement with the literature
75-79%
(confident)
·
Authoritative grasp of conceptual context
·
Insight or originality in way topic is conceptualised or
developed
·
Comprehensive integration of relevant literature/debates
·
Advanced scholarly style (of publishable quality)
70-74%
(solid)
·
Strong grasp of conceptual context
·
Insight in way topic is conceptualised or developed
·
Good integration of relevant literature/debates
·
Scholarly style (publishable with minor revisions)
MERIT
65-69%
(very good)
·
Good conceptual understanding
·
Critical analysis using an appropriate range of sources
·
Clarity and precision in presenting arguments
60-64%
(competent)
As above, with less depth and
criticality
PASS
55-59%
(promising)
As below, plus stronger on analysis
50-54%
(passable)
·
Basic grasp of essential concepts/theory/sources
·
Some analysis/interpretation
·
Reasonably clear and orderly presentation
FAIL
45-49%
(borderline fail)
·
Largely descriptive
·
Limited interpretation
·
Limited range of sources
·
Lack of coherence and clarity
40-44%
(near borderline)
As above, with greater lack of
interpretation
30-39%
(poor)
Descriptive, unfocused work, lacking in interpretative or
conceptual dimension and use of sources
0-29%
(inadequate)
Incomplete or very poorly attempted
work
